Rocksolid Light

News from da outaworlds

mail  files  register  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Don't hate yourself in the morning -- sleep till noon.

comp / comp.os.linux.advocacy / Re: GCC > MSVC (was Re: Looks like I have to retroactively shut down that lying shithead Feeb)

SubjectAuthor
* Looks like I have to retroactively shut down that lying shithead FeebDFS
+- Re: Looks like I have to retroactively shut down that lying shithead Feebrbowman
`* Re: GCC > MSVC (was Re: Looks like I have to retroactively shut down that lying Lawrence D'Oliveiro
 `- Re: Looks like I have to retroactively shut down that lying shithead FeebDFS

1
Subject: Looks like I have to retroactively shut down that lying shithead Feeb
From: DFS
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 14:50 UTC
Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.netnews.com!postmaster.netnews.com!us12.netnews.com!not-for-mail
X-Trace: DXC=7:BB6XgZRmVTBYNk3=OSRZHWonT5<]0T]Q;nb^V>PUfV`L[ofA1LK4QL]Xbg<imJ2T38^DJVRNAKWDP<\IjR\IBPWjB\<Me8\AW@GM\IYO6WZT>Oa:X5b?f8X
X-Complaints-To: support@blocknews.net
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 10:50:50 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Betterbird (Windows)
From: nospam@dfs.com (DFS)
Subject: Looks like I have to retroactively shut down that lying shithead Feeb
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <6650a94a$0$7059$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
X-Trace: 1716562250 reader.netnews.com 7059 127.0.0.1:34941
View all headers

This one goes back a ways, but it's never too late to prove what a
lying, babbling fool he is.

In Sep 2016 Feeb claimed:

1) MS Visual Studio support for the C99 standard was "nearly TWENTY
FUCKING YEARS behind the times."

2) "GNU/Linux had conformed to a 1999 standard in ... you
guessed it ... 1999."

The reality:

* The C99 standard was adopted in March 2000, so GuhNoo GCC couldn't
have conformed to it in 1999.

* Support for C99 was substantially complete in Visual Studio 2013


https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/c99-library-support-in-visual-studio-2013/

So that's 13 years after the C99 standard was adopted, not 20 as
Feeb lied.

* "C99 is substantially completely supported as of GCC 4.5"

https://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html

So when was GCC 4.5.0 released? Not until Apr 2010, way way way
after the C99 standard was adopted.

So it turns out GuhNoo support for C99 was *TEN FUCKING YEARS* behind
the times, not 0 years as Feeb lied.

3 Feeb lies.
3 Feeb FAILS.

As usual.

Subject: Re: Looks like I have to retroactively shut down that lying shithead Feeb
From: rbowman
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 19:07 UTC
References: 1
Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: bowman@montana.com (rbowman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looks like I have to retroactively shut down that lying shithead
Feeb
Date: 24 May 2024 19:07:26 GMT
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <lbc6reFjnhcU4@mid.individual.net>
References: <6650a94a$0$7059$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net UgM6nzHLnnFOkAf2VxQsHAvr8xh8SBbB1Y8aVWjJm4LKsprPd3
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tA5GCBF8QEGEk9rOwLjnY4Lkiks= sha256:9PTxg30jpZZxS65gm55SJA5DHLNemoHjDVpA9DLPHZ4=
User-Agent: Pan/0.149 (Bellevue; 4c157ba)
View all headers

On Fri, 24 May 2024 10:50:50 -0400, DFS wrote:

> So when was GCC 4.5.0 released? Not until Apr 2010, way way way
> after the C99 standard was adopted.

Living in the past again?

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/overview/cpp-conformance-
improvements?view=msvc-170

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/overview/visual-cpp-language-
conformance?view=msvc-170

https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html

Subject: Re: GCC > MSVC (was Re: Looks like I have to retroactively shut down that lying shithead Feeb)
From: Lawrence D'Oliv
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 00:53 UTC
References: 1
Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ldo@nz.invalid (Lawrence D'Oliveiro)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: GCC > MSVC (was Re: Looks like I have to retroactively shut down
that lying shithead Feeb)
Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 00:53:12 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <v2u15o$33nmn$4@dont-email.me>
References: <6650a94a$0$7059$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 02:53:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="451388443190dda9246e73da8c2a17d4";
logging-data="3268311"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+QmkGs9TOB3gDsW5BfD1zV"
User-Agent: Pan/0.158 (Avdiivka; )
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lGDEw7o69IERTQguOwnBFeVFYcY=
View all headers

On Fri, 24 May 2024 10:50:50 -0400, DFS wrote:

> * The C99 standard was adopted in March 2000, so GuhNoo GCC couldn't
> have conformed to it in 1999.

It is quite common for open standards to tested in working implementations
before they are officially finalized. I think GCC is often a testbed for
this sort of thing.

> * Support for C99 was substantially complete in Visual Studio 2013

Just two years after C11 was finalized. Aren’t you proud of yourself?

Subject: Re: Looks like I have to retroactively shut down that lying shithead Feeb
From: DFS
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 14:46 UTC
References: 1 2
Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.netnews.com!postmaster.netnews.com!us8.netnews.com!not-for-mail
X-Trace: DXC=:;ai6IUbNFXmX=_jP@VG9QHWonT5<]0T]Q;nb^V>PUfV5[gZBW6J?L\>8J_kK>kdRYdIZ@Woha?O[0Aem@>H[5UWWjB\<Me8\AW@GM\IYO6WZT>Oa:X5b?f8X
X-Complaints-To: support@blocknews.net
Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 10:46:33 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Betterbird (Windows)
From: nospam@dfs.com (DFS)
Subject: Re: Looks like I have to retroactively shut down that lying shithead
Feeb
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
References: <6650a94a$0$7059$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
<v2u15o$33nmn$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v2u15o$33nmn$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <66534b46$0$6553$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
X-Trace: 1716734790 reader.netnews.com 6553 127.0.0.1:41915
View all headers

On 5/25/2024 8:53 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2024 10:50:50 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> * The C99 standard was adopted in March 2000, so GuhNoo GCC couldn't
>> have conformed to it in 1999.
>
> It is quite common for open standards to tested in working implementations
> before they are officially finalized. I think GCC is often a testbed for
> this sort of thing.

Perhaps, but GCC conformance to the C99 standard came "TEN FUCKING
YEARS" later, not before it was actually adopted.

>> * Support for C99 was substantially complete in Visual Studio 2013
>
> Just two years after C11 was finalized.

Not bad, considering: "For many years Visual Studio has only supported C
to the extent of it being required for C++."

> Aren’t you proud of yourself?

Of course. Correcting lying Linux crazies is important work.

1

rocksolid light 0.9.8
clearnet tor